Research Methodology

3.3.1 Qualitative and Quantitative Research Approaches

Research methodology is a set of procedures upon which the research is based. Morrison (2012, p.15) explain “methodology as a theory of how researchers gain knowledge in research contexts and why”. In social science research, although methodology is a priori to research methods in principle, in practice both are interrelated. The main purpose of using methodology is to define the research approach, which will address the research questions (Bryman, 2012).

In general, there are two main approaches in social science research, namely qualitative and quantitative. Research methodologies within the quantitative approach include experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational and surveys, whilst within the qualitative approach, methodologies include case study, ethnography and grounded theory (Creswell, 2013). This project followed a qualitative research approach and a case study methodology.

There is no sharp dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research because sometimes researchers in qualitative research also use quantitative measures to understand a phenomenon and vice versa (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Bryman, 2012). However, quantitative methodologies are more interested in the measurement of phenomena, whereas the qualitative approach is more focused on exploring the meanings social concepts have for people (Creswell, 2003). Qualitative research aims to understand how people themselves make sense of the social world around them, how they interpret it and what processes are involved in this sense making and interpretation (Merriam, 2009). In a qualitative approach, the data collection mainly takes the form of a discussion or social interaction between the researcher and the participants (Kvale, 1996).

Broad questions are asked to give the participants the opportunity to express their own views on a given social situation or phenomenon (Bryman, 2012).

The language and the words used become important in the data collection, analysis and presentation of the findings. Additionally, the researcher’s own social, cultural and educational background becomes important in the interpretation of the data (Hartas, 2010). Another key characteristic of qualitative research is that the researcher does not have any pre-set hypotheses or theories in mind to prove or disprove. The researcher employs an iterative rather than a linear process of describing, examining and interpreting the empirical evidence (Bryman, 2012). Qualitative research does not deal with statistical data and generally takes place in natural settings, which allows the researcher to be close to participants (Creswell, 2003).

Qualitative research can provide in-depth insights into questions such as “how” and “why” (Wellington, 2000). In this research, I was interested in understanding “what” role HoDs play in relation to quality achievement. This is in addition to exploring “what” factors influenced the abilities of HoDs to achieve quality and “how” their selection and development affected achievement of quality. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate to conduct a qualitative inquiry, as this approach stresses subjectivity and interpretation. Moreover, it also allowed the flexibility needed to explore the multiple realities across various organisational and professional hierarchies involved in achieving quality in HEIs of KSA.

3.3.2 Research Approach

Qualitative research can use a range of different approaches, one of which is case study. Case study embraces the complexity of the phenomenon and accepts that there may be multiple factors involved in the occurrence of the phenomenon. It allows the phenomenon to be studied in real time and within naturally occurring events, using a

variety of different data collection methods (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009; Creswell, 2013). Because the phenomenon is being studied in its natural setting, researchers can look at it in depth and holistically, which allows them to address how and why questions (Yin, 2014). This leads to a higher level of conceptual validity (Flyvbjerg, 2011). A case study methodology is also “a step to action” (Bassey, 1999, p.23) as findings from a case study can be used for addressing real world issues. One of the key advantages of case study is its flexibility and use of multiple methods of data collection (Matthews and Ross, 2010). There are different types of case studies, described by different authors (Bassey, 1999; Robson, 2011; Yin, 2014); however, according to Yin (2014), the three main types are exploratory, explanatory and descriptive case studies. Summarising the main differences between three types of case studies, Yin (2014) notes that in exploratory case studies, the researcher has limited knowledge about the phenomenon; hence some data is collected to evaluate whether the topic is worthy of further research. Descriptive case studies describe a phenomenon with special focus on the process of something happening. Explanatory case study is used where the aim is to explain “why” something happened the way it happened. The current research employed an exploratory type in order to understand how quality is achieved by HoDs in the HE sector of KSA. It sought neither theory building nor testing (Bassey, 1999), and the selected case (i.e. an HEI) acted as a means to understand the phenomenon of interest (i.e. the achievement of quality by HoDs in an HEI). It is important to clarify that HoDs themselves were not my case. Rather, the case was the selected HEI, which idea aligned well to the notion of most case study research being conducted on a single case to gain deeper understanding of a phenomenon (Stake, 1995).

In this research, the selected case (the HEI) was purposive in nature. I purposefully selected a high-ranked university from the KSA, to undertake this research because it is

one of the oldest and largest public sector HEIs in the KSA. In addition to this, Al- Jawda University was among the first to receive national and international accreditation. A detailed explanation of this is provided in the next section. In this research, I was interested in “knowing more about less”, rather than “less about more”. Hence, I decided to use a single case study to attain “depth” rather than “breadth” of understanding (Gerring, 2007, p.49).

3.3.2.1 Generalisation from Case Study and its Limitations

While a case study is useful for understanding a phenomenon in depth, I acknowledge that there are a few limitations associated with case study and I sought to address these while conducting this project.

1. According to Yin (2014), researchers have identified a lack of adequate rigour and poor practices in following systematic process in case study research. In my research, I have documented each step of the research. My decisions during the research process were based on guidelines offered in existing literature in the field.

2. Moreover, because of the focus on a single case, the potential for researcher bias can be increased, although I do not have any personal bias or affiliation with the selected institution. Al-Jawda University is identified as highly ranked in government documentation. I am neither an employee of this university nor do I have any personal connection with the institution.

3. The most common limitation of case study research is its inability to generalise or transfer its findings to other cases (Bassey, 1999; Gerring, 2007; Hancock, Ockleford and Windridge, 2007; Robson, 2011; Yin, 2014). The findings from my case study research may not be statistical, but only theoretically transferable. In statistical generalisation, a researcher “seeks to move from a sample to a

population, based on, for example, sampling strategies, frequencies, statistical significance and effect size” (Cohen et al., 2011, p.294). Theoretical generalisability, however, means that concepts and ideas are transferable to other theoretically similar contexts. In this study, I focus on “transferability”, rather than “generalisability”; however, although the first term is used for generalisation in qualitative contexts, both terms are sometimes used interchangeably (Bryman, 2012).

4. Another concern raised about case study research is the amount of time and resources needed to complete such in-depth studies. However, this investment would have value in terms of thorough understanding, which my research provided.

The limitations of case study outlined above can be addressed by ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place and by utilising methodological and participant triangulation (see in particular Section 3.8 for further details).

The results of this case study can be transferable since, in the Saudi context, there are observable similarities between HEIs. These include:

1. As mentioned in the Introduction Chapter, all Saudi HEIs are under the authority of the MoHE, hence, they must obey the rules and guidance of MoHE. Thus, they have limited autonomy in their decision-making and are required to follow the same regulations.

2. Centralisation and top-down approaches dominate the Saudi HE system; therefore, any resultant issues will have a similar impact on Saudi universities. 3. Since academics at all Saudi universities receive the same type of incentives and

Therefore, it seems that the results obtained from this study could be transferable to other prestigious Saudi HEIs. The next section will discuss the population and sampling for this study.